• snowdrop@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Any “Christian” who isn’t calling them out loudly is complicit and deserves to have their religion dragged through the mud.

    Anyone who dismisses them by saying “oh they’re not ‘real’ Christians” is deluding themselves and is carrying water for fascism.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    If the losers could wear a swastika too, they would. These asswipes remind of the photos showing German Protestant and Catholic priests wearing a cross and swastika urging the young men to their duty for God and the fucking Nazis.

  • Basic Glitch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    Its called blasphemy. Especially the “moral” outrage aimed at anyone who makes a joke that’s deemed offensive by team neo Nazi pedophile, or points out their hypocrisy.

    How dare anyone question the unjust laws of the department of injustice! Didn’t you all see the giant gold cross she always makes sure to put on public display? It’s like walking around with a VIP pass that says anything we say is now law becomes automatically justified and moral because obviously, as proud members of team Neo Nazi Pedophile, we’re the authority on what’s moral.

    Isiah 10:1-4 Woe to tyrants…

    Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning,

    Tbf that’s the old testament, but the “Christian” natural law crowd sure loves to cite the old testament when it suits their needs (they kinda have to because most of the new testament doesn’t. This is a feature, not a bug because Christ was a SJW).

    “An unjust law is no law at all.” We all allegedly agree on that, but there does seem to be some sort of miscommunication in America about what is “justice,” and who gets to decide if a law is “just.”

    I tend to believe this is where the voice of “We the People” have a very important role to play. However, many of the “anti-elitists” in the Trump administration, (who often hold degrees from Ivy League universities), prefer to cite their fellow “anti-elitist” Harvard law professor Adrien Vermeule and his legal theory on Greater Good Constitutionalism.

    Essentially all law, is meant to be interpreted by the highest authority. That’s why executive authority “Trumps” judicial. The theory also explicitly states the constitution is not meant to uphold liberty, but to be interpreted by a modern authority in order to promote the greater good. In other words, a violation of your constitutional rights isn’t necessarily a violation of the constitution, as long as an authority claims doing so is necessary for the greater good. For instance, trading liberty for the “safety” of all Americans in order to justify the patriot act or sending ICE to take over American cities. Obviously this is all being done for our own good.

    Coincidentally, this could also apply if we we’re hypothetically told by somebody that accepting our own authoritarian surveillance state might be preferable to billionaires losing the made up race they’re allegedly competing in against China, despite those same billionaires being the ones who enabled China’s surveillance state.

    Sept 2025: Silicon Valley enabled brutal mass detention and surveillance in China, internal documents show

    Nov 2025: Palantir CEO Says a Surveillance State Is Preferable to China Winning the AI Race

    Even though you may be under the impression that murder, exploitation, and pedophelia are crimes that should be punishable by the rule of law, Vermuele and all the “anti-elitist” legal scholars and authorities like him, believe the law is meant to be the embodiment of a leader’s moral reason. When a leader’s moral compass steers him to break the law as it’s written, simply applying those laws as they are written (aka accountability) would be “unjust.”

  • Akasazh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    If I were to develop an evangelic ruleset, hypocrisy would be the most fundamental sin.

  • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    The most effective way to damage Christianity is to read the parts of the Bible they don’t talk about

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I don’t know, part of believing in religion is doublethink. Many religious will say “just don’t think about it” when presented with contradicting information. That’s why religion encourages suppression of free thinking.

  • IndridCold@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    The worst people I’ve ever met in my life wore a cross.

    There is no hate like Christian love.

  • BassTurd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    That’s not a crucifix, it’s just a cross. Point still stand though. Fuck Bondi.